tv U.S. Senate CSPAN September 22, 2014 4:30pm-8:01pm EDT
>> and you're never going to win on everything. if you get 65, 75, 70% of what you're looking for, that's a win. that's why i've been called a pragmatic conservative. i believe in moving pragmatically forward. we're not going to get there overnight. these lines in the sand to get everything you want do not work, as we have seen. but ultimately, i want to start with your original point. 85% are frustrated. the challenge is on the voter. why are we not changing? why are we still listening to the money?
why are we still listening to the propaganda? who is buying that? it is not you. it does not represent you. so i'm happy to be a conservative, but i'm a populist conservative. i don't take the money, i don't listen to the money because i care. we're going to move people forward together. >> moderator: mr. domina. david domina: well, i think the answer to this is, in part, attitude, but it's in part identifying where a new united states senator can agree with people in the opposing party and disagree with people in his own and do that intelligently. it's also a matter of identifying problems of common interest and concern particularly with our neighbors. south dakota and iowa will have new united states senators this year. we have enormous problems with the missouri river affecting those three states. gavin's point dam and lewis and clark lake are big engineering problems. they will cost enormous amounts
of money if we don't address the simple matter of the fact that the dam is silting full of mud. that's something we can work on. we're still trying to clean up from the 2011 flood. that's something those three new united states senators can work on together starting on day one and should. from there you grow it out to another issue, another subject. and be careful to speak only when there's something to say. it's so important, i think, that a new united states senator from nebraska appear to be thoughtful, informed, interested in all points of view, willing to accommodate them and express himself on behalf of the people of nebraska only when there's something to say. that requires avoiding extremism. and extremism can be easily detected in the campaign process. it can be seen by looking at sources of funds or who comes to the state to campaign on behalf of a candidate. and we've seen extremism in this
campaign already. > my whole campaign has been talking about the disfunction in congress. it's clearly a broken system. that's why i decided to run as a nonpartisan candidate. i'm the only candidate on the stage who has pledged, and right from the beginning, that i would not caucus with either the democrats or the republicans, but instead work to find common ground with both republicans and democrats on all the issues that republicans and democrats have kicked down the road. neither house, house or senate will produce a budget on time this year. we're not addressing the deficit. we walked away from both parties from bowles-simpson, a blue ribbon commission four years ago to address the problem. you won't hear any of the other candidates talk about simpson-bowles. tax reform, again, because of the pledge that one of the candidates in this race has
signed, very difficult to enter into good faith negotiations on tax reform. we've heard the debate on immigration. it's been kick the can down the road the entire time. i've called for in my pain a bipartisan -- my campaign a bipartisan leadership committee similar to what we have in the nebraska legislature which would ask congress to pick the top ten issues every single year on a bipartisan basises to address those issues -- basis to address those issues within a two-year period. we need to demand that our political leaders stop the excessive partisanship and come to the middle where all the solutions inevitably happen. >> moderator: mr. sassse. >> my family and i have been incredibly encouraged over the course of this campaign. last week we had put 4,200 miles on the bus by the time we blew the transmission and had to take a few days off. but we are spending time in all 93 counties, and you find our
people are very pessimistic about washington, about the vacuum of leadership and about the kinds of people we send there who really believe washington can solve our problems with more taxes and more regulations and more mandates. nebraskans don't believe that. but they're still very optimistic about this nation and what the glorious inheritance is that we've received, and they want to pass it on to their kids. but they want a washington that's humbler, a politics that's humbler, that tries to do fewer things, but the more important things more you are gently, more transparently and with less screaming. and that starts by telling the truth about a fiscal house that is not in order. admiral mullen believes that the greatest military threat we face as a nation is the growing red ink. and so it isn't good enough to just say "kumbaya" about what needs to happen in washington. we need people who want to tell the truth about budgets that don't add up. but when you travel across the state -- and i'm proud to have been supported in our primary by
92 of 93 counties and to have 11 times as many nebraska donors as all three of the other candidates combined because we're spending time talking to nebraskans, and they believe deeply in america, that they want a more humble washington. >> moderator: mr. watson. >> i think i started the questions -- >> moderator: can oh, you did start that. >> yeah. i agree -- [laughter] >> moderator: we're going to move on to our next question. from jackie harms, believe, that's going to go to mr. domina. >> it's the job of agencies like the irs and the epa to enforce the laws written by some senators, so what needs to happen to make sure that these agencies don't overstep their bounds and create their own policies? david domina: well, the most important things the united states congress can do is to write common sense laws. no agency has rulemaking authority unless it's given by congress, and it has to be given by express fiat. congress can either occupy a
significant part of the regulatory field by definition, or it can pass a generalized law and default the regulatory process to the agency. that's a choice that is made bill by bill. the former choice is usually the better choice. it hasn't been done very often recently, and the reason is that we've had too much partisan gridlock. we haven't been able to get together on enough instruction, enough definition for agencies, and that creates an enormous problem. that problem is dramatically attenuated by dark money in politics. dark money in politics creates a revolving door between the private sector and the agency, the congress and the private sector and the agency. it encourages agencies to deal with those that they're supposeo regulate in a way that isn't objective and isn't distant, and it holds out then to people who seek nothing more than to get
elected, that holy grail of money for campaign finance. those are the problems. you know, the states, the federal government can for decades -- government for decades and in some instances centuries were not conflicted with regulatory bills. it all happened when industry took over regulation, and congress let it happen to finance elections. that's the problem. >> moderator: mr. jenkins. >> i spent a week in washington, d.c., and i was sad to hear that from our congressional delegation some members told me that over 50% of candidates' time are spent raising money. raising money from special interest groups. lobbyists have truly hijacked our system. i'm not against lobbying. it's clearly necessary that various groups have influence. i've certainly lobbied congress. but the fact of the matter is when you can have mr. sasse bring in millions of dollars from organizations like club for growth or senate freedom
foundation and use that, the first million dollars in the door, use that money then to bring his campaign up to speed and raise -- >> moderator: like to remind you, mr. general kips, we're agreeing not to address candidates directly. >> okay. i was just pointing out the position. >> moderator: we understand. >> the fact is i'm on the receiving end of a $2.7 million ad campaign running out of custer county. and so when some candidates, some candidates -- [laughter] some candidates talk about all the support, the fact is running out of custer county is a lot different than running out of washington, d.c. with connections back there. the bottom line is the irs, to the answer your question on regulation, the irs is one of the most burdensome regulation that we face as small business people and all of us. there's 100% consent, i think, that we need to address and reform and modernize the irs. but you'll see that over the
last 25 years neither party has taken any steps to simplify the tax code and make it easier for all the citizens despite it being one of those bipartisan issues that all of us understand need to be addressed. but you can't do it -- >> moderator: thank you, sir. we're going to move on to mr. sasse. >> this is five of six questions in a row, so i'm going to speak to this first. simple fact, the candidate to my right has 20 donors in nebraska, i have 3,200 nebraska supporters, so i don't know what all this stuff is, making up charges about out of state this, that and the other thing. i have 3,200 nebraska sport supporters, other people have a couple dozen. speaking to the question that was actually asked, i'm proud to be supported by the largest grassroots organization in the state, the farm bureau, and they've endorsed me for a reason. they say we need a fighter against the regulatory overreach of washington d.c. osha and epa are trying to do
things on farms and ranches that make no sense. the epa is estimated by one recent study to have statutory that is right for about one-third of the areas where they're currently writing rules. this is when the president says things like if the congress won't pass laws i wish they would pass, it's okay, i have a pen and a phone, and i'll just ignore the constitution and unilaterally write laws. we need bipartisan opposition to that and a bipartisan defense of a constitutional system where the first branch of government -- the congress, which is accountable to the people every two years in the house and every six years in the senate -- has to come home and explain why they're doing the things that they're doing. right now the epa is trying to do things such as the waters of the u.s. rule that are absolutely asinine. people who have never been on a farm and a ranch trying to write rules to micromanage these details. we need to use the powers of the purse that the constitution gives to the congress, and we need a much more robust oversight process to be sure that washington is more humble and that the rules actually flow
from statutory, statutory authority. >> moderator: thank you. mr. watson? >> all this bickering, i just want to say i'm proud to have the least amount of money. [laughter] i mean, you should be too. this means i can represent you directly. i don't have all these beholden interests to answer to. i actually say it with pride. a lot of donors go based on who's going to win or lose. it's like starting a church, never announce it until you have half of it raised because they don't think they're going to be able to build it and win. most of you didn't know about me until a couple months ago. now you do. get behind our campaign. answering your question, irs. i want the citizens to look at the federal reserve. it's unconstitutional. everyone wants wall street's money. no, they have a role to play. i'm not about redistribution, but that is unconstitutional, how we do capitalism the last hundred years, how we did capitalism the first hundred years, that works for all people and rises the tide for everybody. and by the way, i bring that up because the irs was created, the
income tax was created the year the federal reserve was passed, and that is related. so, conservatives, you didn't even have to have an income tax before the federal reserve. pay attention to that. but, again, we'll reform the tax code, and i think we won't have a need for the irs if we get to the right type of code. the epa is a different story. again, a lot of it responds to the president. he has that authority, so the way you restrict it is how you do the budgeting. but, again, the epa is acting out of control. i agree with ben. the waters of the u.s. is just atrocious. and a massive overreach. but, again, referencing an earlier point to the debate, we need regulators if we have them to work with the private sector, not be against in fining them out of business. if we partner, we can build a better country. >> moderator: we have a, we're getting close to our time limit. we have a couple more questions we'd like to get in. we may not get to everybody on these, just so you know. our next question is going to go
to colleen williams, and mr. sasse will take the answer. >> okay. with countless national incidents, high profile shootings in omaha and according to an fbi crime report nearly 81% of nebraska homicides were caused by firearms, do you think the nra's no compromise stance on even the most minimal regulations -- like no background checks at gun shows -- is what's best for the safety of everybody? >> thank you for the question. so, first of all, i am happy to be the nra-endorsed candidate in this race. i believe strongly in the second amendment. our founders understood that government doesn't give us rights, god gives us rights by nature, and we the people come together to secure those rights. government is our shared project to defend our rights. government is not the source or author of them. and my rights as a husband and a dad to defend my family and property predate governor, so i'm happy to be a robust defender of the second amendment. you raise some particular issue
around an nra policy that i don't know much about, so one of the things new to this process is i'm comfortable admitting when i don't know. so i don't know the particular issue you're flagging at this point, but we need more robust defense of the gun laws in america. most of the crimes that are committed with guns in this country have a whole bunch of prosecutorial neglect or passing in previous moments, and we need to be sure that we're robustly defending all the -- >> i'm really confused, you're not familiar with the gun show loophole? >> you named another one that i didn't understand what the one prior to that was? >> the no compromise stance? >> the gun show loophole is, obviously, a journeysic category -- journalistic category to call it a gun show loophole to begin with. what is often called the gun show loophole is regularly about family-to-family traction actions, and i don't believe the government needs to regulate the sale of guns between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers. but there are a bunch of
technical issues we could certainly unpack. >> moderator: we want to get to mr. domina, please. david domina: thank you very much. i think the nra position is over the top. i think that what works for cabela's works at private gun shows. i think there should be universal background checks. while mr. sasse may have been endorsed by the nra, if he doesn't know about the no changes in the current regulations position of the organization that's endorsed him, he's not worthy of the endorse canment. -- endorsement. i also think it's altogether clear that the american people have had enough with the nra. the nra is over the top. the nra stands for the idea that we should make no change of any kind in the interest of the people of the united states. where the states, because of the absence of federal action, have taken some step in the direction of regulating the sale of handguns alone, the number of women killed per year is down 38% state by state.
i'm in favor of reasonable regulations. nobody on this panel, i'll bet, has enjoyed shooting more pheasants than i have in my lifetime. i love owning a gun. i do now, and i'm happy to have anybody know i own it and to have anybody who wants to buy it be checked before they can buy it from me. >> moderator: i know this is something both of you gentlemen want to address as well, but we do have to move on to our closing statements in order to meet the time of the debate, my apologies. we want to end tonight with a final timed question for each candidate. the question is very basic: why should you be nebraska's next u.s. senator? each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer. we begin with dave domina. david domina: you know, i've lived here all of my life, born here, educated here all in the public schools, didn't leave for an education somewhere else, didn't take a position in an
administration in washington, didn't come back for the purpose of grooming myself to run for the united states senate. i'm here because i'm a nebraskan. i want to serve the people of nebraska. i understand our agriculture. i was born and bred in it. i understand our commerce, i've spent my life working in it. i understand our business needs, i'm a businessman. i've started businesses, nurtured businesses, sold them. i understand our markets. i've represented the cattlemen across the united states and nebraska as they've sought and fought for fair markets. i understand our water problems. i also understand that there is an attempt made sometimes to subvert our attention with phrases like "a humbler politics." nebraskans, it is not humbler in politics to accept seven-figure amounts of money from organizations outside the state committed to never adopting a farm bill. it is not humbler to want to take the social security system
away from its present safe method of administration and give it to the bankers who bought us 2008. it is not humbler to dismantle the medicare system or to breach faith with our veterans. those are arrogant things. those are things nebraskans don't stand for, and anybody on this stage purporting to represent a political party -- either of the two who stands for those propositions -- misrepresents the party. >> moderator: thank you, mr. domina. our next closing statement comes from candidate jim jenkins. >> thank you to all of you, it's been an enjoyable campaign, it's been great. some of my family members may have second thoughts, but overall it's been a good time, and we are facing a real important decision here. we as a nation have to decide whether we're going to incentivize partisanship, incentivize it by, through big money, incentivize it by forcing
highly partisan primaries where the most partisan of the partisans ends up winning. there's no secret as to why congress is not getting along and has a low approval rating. it's because we continue to elect the most partisan people, and if they don't adhere to the ideological position of their party, they get primaried. or they lose their funding. or they lose their committee assignments. my background is diverse. i've spent the last 18 years since coming back to nebraska -- i was raised here -- building jobs, building companies. i've created jobs. i've been on the receiving end of government regulation. and despite mr. sasse having a farm bureau endorsement, i am the one candidate who's run for this office over the last 30 years who has extensive agricultural, food and alternative energy experience. i have a very diverse resumé. i'm well known throughout nebraska. i've had the confidence of two republican governors who appointed me to a statewide
commission, and i really am looking for nebraskans to rally around me to support this common sense, centrist approach to politics that we so badly need in washington. >> moderator: thank you, mr. jenkins. our next statement comes from ben sasse. >> i'm running for office because i'm a dad and i care about my kids and nebraskans' kids and grandkids inheriting the great and free and opportunity-filled nation that we were blessed to inherit from our parents and grandparents. i don't think washington is the center of life, and one of the reasons i'm running is because i think we need more people involved in politics who believe that the center of life is north platte and kimball and o'neill and fremont. i'm a fifth generation nebraskan, and we're raising our three little kids about a mile from where i grew up, and it is a wonderful blessing. and i'll be honest, i'm also proud to be the republican nominee in this race. i'd like to speak to it for a second. i'm proud to be in the party of our great senators mike johanns and governor dave heineman and
to have all of their support. but i'm not a republican for reasons that are often caricature inside the national media. i don't want care about the marginal tax rates of the richest 1% of americans. i believe robustly in limited government and defined constitutional freedoms because i believe the center of life is in our nebraska communities. families and churches and civil societies and mediating institutions and the way they help one another. and be i am happily a proponent of a humbler politics where washington tries to do a more limited number of things, but the more important things more urgently and with less shouting. and i've been blessed to spend this year across our 93 counties and to have support not just from republicans, but from democrats and independents across those counties. it's been a great time and, nebraska wans, i would humbly ask for your vote. >> moderator: finally, todd lawson. >> god gave me skills and gave you skills, and i just fundamentally care about the nebraska people. i want to see your tide rise. it's that simple. i love you guys. i really do. but you asked me to take an oath
of office. and i will take that oath with pride. i have to defend the constitution from threats, foreign and domestic. and the constitution says five things; establish justice -- i will not create ip equality under the law for donors, for elected officials because equality before the law is about justice. i will insure the domestic tranquility. i'll be a peacemaker between two warring parties. three, i'll provide for the common defense. securing the border cannot be prolonged more than 28 years. four, i'll promote, not provide, the general -- not corporate -- welfare. and lastly, when i end my oath and i say "so help me god," i will mean it from the bottom of my heart, and i will seek to insure the blessings, which is a gift from god, and we the people
need to get back there, of liberty. which is not big banking or big government for ourselves and our posterity which requires us to address deficits, debts and unfunded liabilities for the next generation. but the vote is in your hands in november. insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. make the change. >> moderator: thank you. first of all, as we wrap up this evening's debate, we have an audience on hand that has been very polite and very attentive. first of all, i think they want to show their appreciation to our candidates this evening. [applause] >> moderator: so thank you very much to our candidates and our panel of journalists. we want to thank north platte high school for letting us take
over this great facility. they've been wonderful to work with. thank you to the nebraska broadcasters association which partnered with net to bring you this event. it's, we're airing on a number of radio and television stations around the state this evening to share the views of these candidates. finally, our audience in the auditorium, thank you again. we will, again, team up with the nba, the nebraska broadcasters, to host a gubernatorial candidate debate on thursday, october 2nd in lincoln broadcast live on net radio and television and streamed online as well. it'll be available on many of those nba partner stations. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: i'm bill kelly, i've been your moderator this evening. thank you so much for being part of the event. ♪ ♪
>> pennsylvania's republican governor tom corbett is running for a second term. he's being challenged by democrat tom wolf. pennsylvania's last five governors were reelected going back to 1974, but according to the cook political report, this year's governor's race leaps democrat. leans democrat. the two candidates will debate tonight at 7:30 eastern time from hershey, pennsylvania, and you can see that debate live on our companion network, c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators," wade baker, chief technology officer and security director for verizon, on the recent data breaches at home depot, target and jpmorgan chase. >> it's truly i all of the above. we have worked with law enforcement agencies who have busted down doors and dragged people out of their basement,
literally. we have also participated in fairly large scale arrests of multiple individuals that are very highly connected together, very well organized. they each have individual specialties and roles. someone writes malicious software, the others know how to wash money and all of these things. they're just like physical organized crime. and then there are others that definitely are working on behalf of a government. they have an office, there's pictures of it, there's recon photos and all of that kind of thing, going in and out to work. and they go to that building, that's their job is to hack into companies and steal information on behalf of a government. i've seen some photos of some eastern european towns, for instance, that were just an insane number of people drive lamborghinis -- [laughter] and things like this. and a lot of that is the spam, the fake pharmaceuticals, the
financial fraud and just tax fraud, medicare fraud and all of these things. it's staggering amounts of money that are at some point along that chain traced back to data that was stolen, stored at a corporation or government. >> tonight at eight aaron on "the communicators" -- eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series: the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events, american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover cha artifacts re-- what artifacts reveal about america's past. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our
nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past, and our new series, "real america," featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s-'70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> we're live at the wilson center in washington for a preview of the upcoming supreme court term. the court is hearing cases on the role of race and drawing congressional districts, protections for whistleblowers and the religious rights of prisoners. during this event this afternoon, we'll hear from a former acting solicitor general during president obama's first term and also several law professors. as we wait for this event to get under way, a story from the associated press. supreme court justice elena kagan officiated a same-sex wedding ceremony sunday in
maryland for her former law clerk and his husband. the associated press said it was the first same-sex ceremony where justice kagan has officiated. the supreme court could decide in its upcoming term whether same-sex couples nationwide have the right to marry under the constitution. this is not the first time a supreme court justice has officiated. retired justice sandra day o'connor and justice ruth bader ginsburg have both previously officiated at weddings of gay and lesbian couples. ..
we are a flagship publication of the aba division for public education and has been the only resource to provide detailed analysis of each case before the supreme court prior to oral arguments. each issue highlights the main issues before the court in a way that long lawyers and lawyers alike can understand. the preview board is board is delighted to welcome you to be on the docket annual supreme court panel. we are excited to be hosting this program once again in partnership with the woodrow wilson center. today we have assembled a great panel to help us understand the significance of the october, 2014 turn into giving inkling of how some of the headline cases for the upcoming term will play out. the moderator will introduce each of the panelists invited like to say something about the moderator, myself. john is a great friend of the program and veteran broadcast
journalist professional with extensive experience in the moderator, interviewer, anger, producer and reporter. he's the director of digital programming for the woodrow wilson center for scholars. thank you for your generous support for the programs and for having us here at the woodrow wilson center. >> thank you gary and to everyone for joining us as well. how many of you have been here before? for those of you coming to the panel will come and i hope you come back. this is the nation's official living memorial to have something very unique about him that no other president can claim. not that he was a lawyer who. anyone know what it is? phd, yes ma'am. one of the only u.s. presidents
to get a phd. welcome to the center for the annual program that is a pleasure always to work with the division for public education through as you'll see in a moment always do such a terrific job of bringing the guest list to the events. you will know a lot more about the supreme court in the coming term when you leave the room then you do correctly i can guarantee that. there's very few other things i can guarantee. this is a preview it's a terrific resource that has detailed biographies of the panel but i'm going to give you the short version for those people joining in the room via podcast and c-span who are unable to pick up a copy in the room that they can find it online like me introduce you from left to right. neal katyal can, actually that is right to left. neal katyal is a partner that has argued 21 cases before the supreme court and more this
year. previously he served as the solicitor general of the united states and also as a law professor for 15 years at georgetown university law center before the age of 21 is that correct? also leslie kendrick the professor of the virginia school of law where her research focus is freedom of expression and she will be talking about the first amendment cases. she clerked for the justice david souter. also joining us today the associate director counsel for the naacp legal defense and education. the faculty scholarship and associate director of the ronald brown center for civil rights and economic development at st. john's university school of law. finally, stephen joins us as a fellow in law and government at the american university washington college of law. he is the co-author of a biography of justice brennan, columnist for the blog and previously served as the supreme
court correspondent for "the wall street journal." please welcome the panel to today's discussion. [applause] >> was me tell you a bit about the format. we have asked each of the sand beneath the panelists to provide briefings on the variety of cases by category and others are little more freefall. when each panelist is the presentation, then we will engage him or her in the case is that eventually will turn to you and ask for your questions and comments but let me begin with a general question about the state of the course that if the court currently either more political than it's ever been or less political than it's ever been or somewhere around the average. let's get an order of introduction. >> i have pretty strong views about this. you see something very striking
that's not happened in most of our lifetime that the court agreed unanimously and roughly two thirds of the cases and 25 decisions that it decided last year that were not unanimous passing it back to 1940. when you read the newspapers and the supreme court that are in the elections have consequences but i do think one thing that we are seeing is a striking instance on unanimity and i think it is fitting that we are talking about here at the wilson center which is devoted to the kind of nonpartisan engagement with ideas and i think the court is looking over at the congress into ceding something a little bit dysfunctional and folks can't get anything done and the court is saying we never
disagree but when we find a common ground including those that affect you and me every day. >> so the court is looking to congress for inspiration on the source. leslie. >> i think the comparisons are really hard to do. in the plaintiff that the amount of unanimity it doesn't take that many hot about ten cases where people see a divided court forgot to be the impression that people take away. i remember there was a case one of the parties and i remember thinking a surprising amount of the something court docket it's not very interesting to most people, not very many hot about ten cases and they can do that extremely well but it doesn't take that many faces that are fire work for death to be what people pay attention to and i
think it is in that context where there are few cases that are hot button. they are subtle questions for us now and it's hard to make the comparison. >> what do you think? in the number of cases that the supreme court has taken recently it is significant every time the court is in full term we see the shrinking docket and so therefore the number of unanimous decisions to the chief justice roberts has been able is impressive but there are a smaller number of cases that we are working on in the docket. >> do less cases = agreement historically? >> the kind of cases the court is taking. some of them are the mundane
run-of-the-mill but are not hurting that it is all dropping and i think that it is a good one where we see the unanimity and i do wonder though what are we losing in the unanimity citizen whether it is more or less political but is being cut out of the edges to create a more consensus opinion and that in and of itself could be. >> senator discussing politics at table. >> i would make two points. i think there's a lot of unanimity. the cell phone case for example the court did a good job of narrowing the issue to something that all nine of them could agree on but it's not the last cell phone case we are going to see and it won't be unanimous because they masked some of the
disagreements indicated that in some other cases, too. trying to find common ground but don't make a mistake in thinking that it's necessarily that all issues are being resulted in that way. the other thing that i would say is i agree the court with congress being dysfunctional that one of the offshoots of being dysfunctional is when the court strikes down federal statutes, we presumed that congress can correct the mistakes in the statutes if they want to and a dysfunctional congress can't do that. >> you're not painting the picture of a highly partisan undertaking. there's a lot of nuances but if you hear the critics of the court on things like citizens united, you get a very different picture. there are certain hot button
cases and perhaps some of the cases that may come to the court this term same-sex marriage and abortion and that may be other ones in which you are going to have that amount of disagreement but having said that come that come at a, the striking agreement on things like cell phones which is an arrow this is a holding that affects what they could have done with the general laurent of the founding and one of the most significant of the supreme court in the lifetimes that it had been fully unanimous and so on like the recess appointments that president obama did and now the decision of president obama was wrong. so certainly there are political decisions of things that have political consequences but i do think that this court has done court has done something interesting to find common ground.
>> any other thoughts on this? >> let's look back at the last term before we turn our attention. is there anything that you would list as the most surprising performance during the last term? >> there is an ability on these hot button issues. neil describes a specific strategy to have the votes. so is there anything that has surprised you were we talking about a highly predictable court clerks >> i don't want to speak for me all that the cell phone was surprising especially given the unanimous dfa at the end of the recess appointments were also surprising. we no chief justice roberts says he wants to try to find as much common ground on which all nine
can agree that that doesn't mean they will always be able to find it so sometimes when they do it does catch you off guard. >> they are surprising in the chief justice roberts seems to be better at creating that courage and the members of the court are getting to know each other and seem to be driving a big group and there does seem to be a greater cohesion. there are some politics and the court and the cases are rather predictable in the areas that we need to find more predictability
>> i try not to have any expectations about the court. they are going to do what they are going to do. often you can predict where the battle lines are going to be drawn at how they are going to come down trying to gauge that said there was that there were some cases that i think were big cases. hobby lobby is a big case. it could have gone one way or the other based on what a couple justices voted at the privately held corporations and has become has the big capacitance appraising? know but it's been momentous and that is more important. >> it is not something that happened at the court. it's not surprising the last ten to 15 years we've seen the
emergence 71% of arguments in the last term by people who have done five or more arguments but here is the striking thing last year 15% of the people that argue the supreme court 15% in 2014 and that is a strikingly dismal figure. i would have thought by this point in time we would see different numbers and that is something that we need to think about. >> now we are going to turn our attention to the coming of the term. this was the high price top-notch people appear. we are going to begin with you and the clock will be running. about ten minutes for the segment was talking about the voting rights cases and we will preview some things that are upcoming.
>> i'm talking about a consolidated case that is alabama democratic conference versus alabama and the black legislative caucus versus alabama. the two cases were consolidated and this would be the first time that the court had dealt with the voting rights act case since shelby county versus holder which was the term before last bareboat court build a devastating blow to the voting rights act of 1965, so this is momentous for a number of different reasons that so far looking at the petitions the court has granted this is going to be the term unless one of the voting id cases makes its way to the supreme court and certainly wisconsin is vying for that honor so we'll see what happens there to raise this -- as you can hear in the party there are
different dimensions to the case and it is a racial concerns. so the democratic conference is that an african-american political action committee on the one hand and the other case the alabama black legislative caucus consists of african-american legislators and representatives in the state of alabama and both parties are suing based on a republican-led state redistricting map that came out of the 2010 census. so every ten years as you probably know the states go through these phenomenal processes called redistricting where they redraw the legislative districts were state legislatures or local commissions and even congressional redistricting. this is challenging and the concern here is that the way in
which we configure the district particularly how they included minorities in the district violating the equal protection clause no matter what level but especially if you apply strict scrutiny whenever there's an allegation that race played a predominant role in the redistricting. so, in a nutshell, into 2000. it was creating the majority minority district and was preserved in a certain number of the majority black districts were created. when the legislature legislature attempted to update the plan following the 2010 census, it continued to keep the same percentages of black persons in the majority minority districts
as they had in 2000. now, on the state is down, anything that's problematic. but if you know about the standards by which we judge the legality of the majority in the districts, you realize that just rubber stamping work of creating the cookie-cutter planned doesn't necessarily yield a plan that is constitutional or one that is consistent in the voting rights act. so the voting rights act is required and talking about section five in particular, requires that any voting change including the legislative map must not put minority voters in a worse position. it must not have the intent to do that and it can have the effect of doing that. and we call that a process or that measure of determining whether they are put in the position we call it retro aggression. it cannot retrogressive. so in this particular case
including the same percentages of the population and the newer districts the legislatures didn't take account of the fact that minority voting rights actually evil and that the same 77% black districts that may have existed in 2000 didn't need to exist in such high concentration of black voters in 2010 and that is really the crux of the concern. there are a few interesting points about the case. first as i mentioned this is good to be the first time that the court will vote on these and shelby county versus holder and in that case the court didn't strike down section five of the act but instead struck down section four which created a trigger for which they would be covered by section five so basically it was the formula for deciding which jurisdictions would be subject to this
retrogression standard. they left section five in tact that we don't know if we are able in fact to create a new section five or section four or what the court will do with it or how well it will be protected and i think everyone is good to be looking at the case on the important question but it's also the first time the court will be dealing with the gerrymandering since the tech said david texas redistricting case and it's been quite sometime since the court has dug into these issues were brought to the bank to the issues of racial gerrymandering. the second reason that case is particularly important is because we are going to understand where the court
places the value of compliance with section five. the republican legislature as i mentioned created the majority minority districts and subsection five made me do it. the only reason we pass black voters into the districts have such high rates can and they are luckily 65 to 77% in certain districts, the only reason we did this is because we have to comply with section five of the voting rights act and what certainly the legal defense fund tuesday and they said in the amicus brief that we filed, it requires a much more nuanced analysis and a district by district and analysis analysis of the minority voting power determining how much traditional redistricting criteria played into the legislative redistricting process and how much did the rates paid a predominant factor lacks all of those particular questions are on the district by district
basis. so we are looking at the contours of the aggression and standards and the districts can come in all shapes and sizes and depends on the general redistricting criteria in determining what is a constitutionally viable majority minority district and one that would be protected under the act. another interesting tidbit about the case is that the minority majority district in the 2010 plan that i mentioned were challenged by republicans when the district came to pass and now again the fast forward and at the same districts are being protected by the legislature and
claim as part of their efforts to comply with section five. where i work we are a nonpartisan group focused only on the ability of the minority voters to elect candidates of choice, and we submit to that certainly by having the high concentration of the voters in the districts, they are in fact losing their ability to elect candidates of choice in the way that they could have years ago. >> let me cut to what i think would be the most problematic decision the court can make. we can simply say yes the panel that dealt with the case in alabama could revisit the issue and apply the standards to.
there is a standing issue that was relatively well and i doubt that the court would have those standing grounds but that's also an avenue. what the court should not do is create a bright line rule as to what is the appropriate percentage for any of the majority districts. this is a fact intensive inquiry that requires a great deal of subtle analysis and that is what we think the court should order to deal with the constitutionality of the district and not create any racial quota. >> we are talking about the republicans feelings about this standard now, and i think that it is it seems the problem is into gerrymandering but it's who is doing the gerrymandering when it becomes contentious.
is there anything that we would like to add to the segment before we move on? are there any cases if there is something else that you would like to discuss. next we have asked neal katyal to talk to us about same-sex marriage can't something that has vowed to be another contentious issue in the court and the court seems eager to weigh in on that so i do think that this side of the issue is basically the greatest civil rights issue of our time and they have seven different positions raising the questions about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage restrictions. there are three of them from virginia, one from utah, one from oklahoma, wisconsin and one from indiana. the court is going to consider them into whether to hear the
case on september 29 at the first conference. we have a nice long summer break like the schoolchildren and they are working quite hard but they don't actually announce the cases that they would hear so september 29 is the first day when they would take up his enormously interesting set of questions. the first case was filed by the state state of utah at the supreme court along with an amazing team and folks across the country so i'm going to stick to the public filings in the case and tell you what it's about. it does a few things that restricts marriage to a man and a woman and says if you have a same-sex marriage in some other state that when you move to utah they won't recognize that for
the folks that have either same-sex marriages or we are not going to give any such benefits. so they challenge that as a violation of the equal protection clause and the due process clause and essentially this is unconstitutional and it's a denial of the quality and they one. indeed there've been 31 or so cases across the country in the last two years and the challengers at 130 they might be slightly wrong but the restrictions have only been upheld once and a while to 30 different court said that violates the principles of the quality. when the law gets struck down the method is a big deal for the court. the greatest chief justice said
that his district on that allows them unconstitutional because what it means is even if the american public really wants that law they can't have it. it's off the table even if it is 99.99% of the people in virginia, utah, whatever that want these restrictions it's off the table. so it is something that is done rarely because it is an awesome power given to the unelected federal court. we were able to convince the district court judge that it was unconstitutional. they also found it unconstitutional and now the state of utah represented by the attorney general and governor asked the u.s. supreme court to come in and say we have a right to pass the law we want to be at its our political process and state responsibility.
it shouldn't be up to the unelected federal courts to decide who should get married and how. they have a strong argument and they point out in the equal protection clause that was passed in 1868, and nobody in the 1868 would have thought that would be something that would prohibit states from banning marriage. of course the challengers say that's not the right way to look at it because the folks in 1868 also don't believe in the de- segregated schools or striking down interracial marriage but of course the supreme court unanimously did that in 1967 for the equal protection clause has some evil thing focus. the challengers also see what is the reason for the law? the genitals regulate marriage but we have to articulate some reason for doing so and this is
one in which the states in general have had difficulty coming up with these into some of the old reasons like the recreation has been discredited by the social sciences, so that is one of the interesting facets about the case. nonetheless, the tenth circuit rules that struck down the ban, they put their decision on hold and said supreme court, we are going to wait for you. that's where the law stands in utah right now. as the challengers we did something rather unusual. the governor came in and said we want the supreme court to hear this case that even though we have won the case in the court of appeal we court of appeal we told the supreme court does same thing. we said we are confident we can win again before you. give us the hearing, grants the grant the case and let us have ever shot in court and win the nationwide rule because now the
folks that are in utah they can have their marriages recognized even if they've lived in another state or had to move for work or something like that so you have had a patchwork regime state to state and nobody had certainty until the idea behind acquiescence would be in the documents that the government decided its resolve this once and for all. the second case comes from oklahoma. that is a case also coming from the tenth circuit. interestingly here, however, it is only one thing instead of two to be a better or not they can prohibit same-sex marriage it doesn't have the recognition issue of someone being married to say in california and is moving to oklahoma before. for that reason, the challengers have said they are case is even better than the utah case because it is a little cleaner than the one issue instead of two. and they are represented by the
gentle man in the case who was an enormously talented advocate. at the third, fourth and fifth cases at the virginia case, these are all cases that are brought by the clerks in the state of virginia that said cook, virginia law restricts marriage between a man and a woman and be don't want to give licenses to same-sex couples. the virginia attorney general because of the election defense virginia law saying that it's unconstitutional. so the clerks are defending the law and they are before the court also saying take our cases. the fourth circuit court of appeals which is virginia, maryland, north and south carolina, virginia. they said the fourth circuit decision struck down the virginia law and they are saying that the decision is wrong and the court should hear back. they also have two remarkable
lawyers. president bush's solicitor general has taken and said marriage equality. you also have paul smith who argued the texas case a few years ago that struck down bans and is unconstitutional again a talented team but team but finally again we have the cases in indiana congress content. these are cases very similar to those in which we have the marriage restriction as well as the recognition question of people moving into the state and they recognize the case for the court of appeal to strike down the prohibitions richard pozen are appointed by president
reagan and they made the argument that the state was putting forth that both the oral arguments arguments ended in a written opinion. it's a very powerful and very short opinion. and one that gets ammunition to the challengers. justice ginsburg says that suggesting that maybe the court might want to wait for the sixth circuit which has the case from michigan before the u.s. supreme court gets involved they don't have to take anything. one of the greatest powers in the supreme court not to decide. so, you come in and as we heard before but how the court has the docket in the 67 cases 20 years ago they decided 150 cases.
they give 10,000 cases a year so it is really hard to get the case heard by the supreme court and they are always looking for reasons not to do it. so they might say let's wait. let's wait a little longer. but there is a pretty good argument at this point in time that patchwork is such that the people living in tolerable and that's why we have this remarkable agreement by the two. the states and the governors and so on and all of the folks bringing the the cases saying okay here is one point of view and unanimity. >> what are the chances that the ruling as any of the cases that ends any discussion that decides
-- >> rating of the supreme court gets involved in the case and grant the case, they are going to -- grant any of these taking to resolve the issue it will be 100% that is granted and will be resolved. in california they exercise the wiggle room. perhaps now with hindsight you might have read the windsor opinion and said this is really just about the federal government having to respect the choices in the state. but now you have judge after judge after judge saying when they're made me do it and a striking down the argument.
it is an unprecedented number of state laws that have been struck down. perhaps ever in the history of the country that we have the state law struck down. yes it is brown v. board of education and the supreme court says these are all unconstitutional in clear language, but they didn't quite do that. you have the interpreter and you are absolutely right of the judges of all political parties from across the country are interpreting it in one way but just to strike it down with one exception in the vc and i. >> leslie is going to be talking to us that the first amendment cases. >> thank you. i want to thank everyone at the wilson center here for putting on this event and all of you for coming. thank you for being here. so, i'm going to talk a little
bit about the first amendment and i think that take away so far for what the term looks like continuing the first amendment fatal attraction we heard about the diminishing docket and actually i think on the first amendment aside the supreme court sometimes grants cases where it isn't very clear why they are taking it. apparently given the outcome they are not taking it in order to overturn the judgment from a lower court. there is no split. sometimes all of them have been agreed in the propositioned the supreme court ultimately endorses. it seems the public court has never met a person on the case it doesn't like and it is not the first amendment plaintiff didn't like. a couple exceptions are law professors and child pornographers which i doesn't -- i don't know what that says about law professors. they've taken a couple of cases where an dancer is needed. they are doing hard work and cleaning out the clutter of the
first amendment where the courts are in disagreement and everyone is a little bit at sea so the first is versus the united states and this is the case involving the so-called truth rights doctrine. there's a lot of speech protected by the first amendment and a lock that is not protected by the first amendment. this is a question of when is it protected and when is it unprotected. in order to be unprotected, not to be protected in the first amendment, does the speaker have to have been intending to threaten someone or is it enough if a reasonable person thinks that this was threatening language? so you have an objective intent standard usb of the state of mind of the speaker or do you ask with the objective listener would take away. this is and whether you intended
to carry out the threat or not. you have to intend to make someone feel threatened. this involves a man i should say the university of virginia where i worked as a supreme court litigation clinic representing him in the litigation. i am not involved in that representation so i am not here on behalf of him today. he was convicted under a federal threat statute for some choice language on facebook about his ex-wife and other individuals that i will not quote it for you here. many of us would say that it was possibly threatening or at least fairly disturbing. the question is whether legally it counts as a threat. he was convicted under the standard that says all we need to know is whether an objective person would find this to be threatening language. so he sought review by the supreme court and to settle a
disagreement between the circuit about which of the standards is necessary. i've got to see if you know say if you know anything in this area of law you might think that it seems familiar and that the supreme court decided the question before in the 2003 case called virginia versus black in which adult with the true threat standard and said things like threats are those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence or where it says the statements must be made with an intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or that ended talks about intent. you might have taken away the impression that this was an objective intent but it's not clear that is actually what they were focused on in that case. that case involved a state statute that required intent as a matter of criminal law and not a matter of the first protection
maybe that is what they were talking about. if they did need to make intent on the constitutional requirement rather than something that statute happened to include the didn't really tell us why it would be a requirement. you might ask why we need in times on the part of the speaker. you might think otherwise this is going to kill the speech that we want to protect and you go around and say something you don't seem to be threatening that someone takes it as a threat to me that shows your speech because next time you're not going to be as likely to speak out but you might wonder whether intent is a standard that is necessary. maybe knowledge is enough or recklessness is enough for negligence that you should have known people think that people think that this is threatening. it isn't clear if you needed from the chilling perspective and if it's from another perspective the court hasn't made it clear what that is. arguably they decided the
question before but number two they were not totally focused on eight when they decided it and they are the supreme court. if they want to decide twice what they can certainly do that. the other case is in the town of gilbert that had a signage law about permanent signs, temporary signs and where they can be up and how long and that sort of thing. it's all about local government and the town of gilbert pass a law that treats different and very signs like campaign posters differently so it has one set of rules for political signs and one set of rules for it ecological science and rules for others essentially. and there is a church, the good news community church has the direction under the town of gilbert the shows people where to go to come to the surface is.
they are treated differently from the political side and from the ideological side they can be different and they have to be different sizes. they can only be up for a certain amount of time, and this advocates an area that is called a content discrimination. so the supreme court says above all else the first amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression and because of that, the subject matter and content into the question is that is what is going on in this line law. any type of classification on subject matter y. a different treatments for political things or ideological things were other things, the supreme court has frowned upon. and i mean ridiculed and invalidated. when it comes to signage laws
there is an issue because it seems like probably towns aren't trying to discriminate against certain types of messages but probably what they want is to be able to regulate the quality of the environment while also giving room to campaign posters and other things they think are are imported into the supreme important and the supreme court said is important so the question is what matters on the face they treat different things differently based on their content or is what matters kind of the motive behind that and the risk that there is actually discriminatory motive involved so that is a very messy clause. >> you were very polite and not quoting the facebook post but are you familiar with and have you seen -- the point is the language is not ambiguous or clear in the certain context.
but whatever he claims to be a part of i respect that. so there is a question floating around one way in which this type of problem arises they do not intend to convey the serious threat but it's something that is created so this is a particular application of the larger question of what type of intent is necessary for the speech to be unprotected and although the statements themselves are the disturbing fact that it reminds the court any rule is going to articulate
the artistic media that is advertised aspect. >> it also has implications in terms of an evidentiary area standards dealing with the criminal cases. >> they have held that it is admissible and the artistic expression that is just deciding on the voter ramification but if this is in fact the speech that there is a stronger argument to say that that information is not or should not be admissible in a criminal defense trial, however, if it isn't, and it will go the other way but more jurisdictions. >> but a very, very interesting issue and by far it is the closest that the supreme court has ever gotten to that of fiduciary question. >> i also have the sense indicates that the court seems to be playing.
the general protest case would have been a law professor's worst nightmare for hypothetical. you don't want the supreme court to be fighting the law on the horrible fact of the case and now this one, what's next? >> i shudder to think. >> next in thank you for a terrific briefing and welcome to the club you are our newest panelist here. i've listed other cases. we decided that we couldn't put these into any categories that we are highlighting and a steve graciously volunteered to be the go two guy to guy for the grab bag. >> the first one i want to talk about is how same-sex marriage was the civil rights issue in this era or this generation.
sadly one of the cases i want to talk about is the civil rights era of about 40 years ago and it's a case involving pregnancy discrimination. in 1976 the supreme court ruled that discrimination in the workplace against pregnant women wasn't sex discrimination and therefore wasn't covered by title vii in 1964 civil rights act. congress amended title vii in 1978 after the pregnancy discrimination act to try to change that and basically say that discrimination involving pregnancy should be seen as gender discrimination under title vii. fast forward not quite 40 years peggy young worked as a driver at a ups facility in maryland. her job requires her to lift
packages up to 70 pounds in weight. she takes a leave in order to undergo the fertilization in order to become pregnant. she succeeds and becomes pregnant and when she comes back to work her doctors told her that she cannot lift packages more than 20 pounds without whisking her pregnancy so she asks ups which is covered by its own collective bargaining agreement she asks ups for and accommodation that's called a light duty assignment. she would continue to work that she would be in a job where she was giving a wider job that didn't require to put her pregnancy in jeopardy. under the collective bargaining agreement, ups said no you're not eligible for light duty assignment and since you can't perform your regular job
requirements of 70 pounds, you basically can't come back to work until your pregnancy is over. she eventually lost her salary and medical benefits under those circumstances. so what ups says is our policy that we are complying with the discrimination act and we treat everybody the same under particular work conditions. we are not discriminating against people on the basis of pregnancy. they say we will accommodate people with light duty work under three circumstances. one is if they've been injured on the job number two is if they've lost their eligibility for a trucker's license and number three is if they have qualifications under the americans with disabilities act.
well, ups ups has pregnancy isn't a disability under the act and she's not injured on the job, so we are not discriminating against her they are treating her the same as we treat anybody else. so they refuse to hire her, she loses benefits come she gets permission to sue from the equal employment opportunity commission. the case goes up on appeal to the fourth circuit and the fourth circuit upholds the ups policy that is not discriminatory. so she is taking her case to the supreme court. and the justice department, the solicitor general was asked by the court to weigh in on this issue before they decided whether to hear the case or not. and it is a very interesting brief by the general's office general's office that basically says virtually all of the
federal appeals courts that have considered the cases like this have gotten it wrong including this one. but the supreme court could probably wait for another set of facts or another set of circumstances before you decide this case you don't really necessarily have to take this case and furthermore congress was amending the americans with disabilities act that makes it clearer that pregnancy could be considered a disability in some circumstances and the eeoc might adopt regulations that would make this moot and resolve the problem. one of the congress another congress to demand that disabilities act but the regulation didn't seem to solve the problem so the supreme court has agreed to hear the case. one additional note about it, there are always a couple of
cases does return and make wonderfully strange bedfellows and this is one of them. there are all kinds of civil rights groups weighing in saying she should be and titled to be treated as if she were discriminated against on the basis of gender that her treatment violated title vii and there is also a coalition of pro-life antiabortion groups that have weighed in in her favor on the premise that discriminating against people are pregnant provide economic incentives for them to get abortions and therefore that's not what congress intended when it passed the pregnancy discrimination act. it is intended to facilitate childbirth and pregnancy so they weighed in on her side as well which makes it kind of a fascinating sense. my other case -- that one is yahoo! versus the united states postal service and the other is
also a civil rights case of swords. gregory is a prison inmate in arkansas who is known as abdul mohammed and says his muslim beliefs require him to grow a beard at least half an inch in length and the arkansas department of corrections says no thank you. they allow mustaches under the corrections will and they have a narrow exception for quarter inch beards for people who have dermatological problems. they've accommodated him and many other in many other ways. he's allowed to have a prayer rug and a copy of his koran in a special diet, he's been allowed to observe muslim holidays but they say that a half inch or longer beard is a security risk. you can hide drugs or
contraband, razors in the beard and if they make what seems like a fairly compelling security argument. the problem with their argument is that according to the justice department and other briefs, more than 40 states figured out how to accommodate this kind of request. as has the federal bureau of prisons. it's hard for arkansas to maintain. we can't do it because it is too great of a security risk. they say that one of the extenuating factors is that the prison in question is a prison farm where the inmates are not in individual cells and they are in the derek settings that create security issues and they go to work on the prison farm meaning it might be easier for
them to bring things back into the prison. one of the counter arguments raised in the brief is they don't seem worried about the inmates smuggling things in the quotes. they are just worried about their inability to keep them from smuggling things in their beard as a security risk. so, it seems like a kind of strange argument for me. but, and this is all brought under a federal statute, which i have to say the name object for the name the acronym is the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000. the supreme court has done at least one location said we need to be for the expertise of the prison officials when they say they are trying to maintain security. that could be a counterweight here in the way that the court looks at the case.
the legal standard, and then i will stop, under the statute the state has to have compelling reasons for adopting a policy that burdens somebody's freedom and they needed to the need to maintain prison security might be considered to be compelling reasons, but the second part of the test is that the state has to do it in the narrowest possible way. the least restrictive means. and the argument here is they can't possibly meet that burden for the least restrictive means. ..
from daily life. prisons is one where they are getting at. they understand prisons are operating with so much distraction and getting away with so much. if they can do something, they will do whatever it is. if you have eventually present i encourage you to go and see what it's like. justice kennedy served on the california prison commission. he cares deeply about this set of issues. i think this one i feel comfortable arguing almost a thing, but i would not want to argue. >> you would encourage people to visit the easy way, not the hard way. >> absolutely. want to be clear.
>> it's interesting we think about a couple cases we spoke about, so gilbert and holt. we look at the degree of discretion the court theatre to prison officials or local officials about the signage that will go up in a town or the safety concerns. it'll be interesting to see if there's any inconsistency in how much is given to any state officials depending on the context. reasons to present a context and i agree the court is now on to the fact that our prison system is so highly dysfunctional. i think it's the right decision here. >> the made in this case will have the solicitors general office arguing on his side. the agencies that maintain the bureau is pretty powerful. >> any other thoughts on the case is being presented? we are going to soon come to your questions and comments.
comments on the brief cite please. and even questions on the brief site. a couple of four directors of microphones on either side will help you get a microphone and ask your question and that is one thing we ask is please don't start until you have a microphone in hand and hold it close your mouth and don't fiddle with turning it on iraq. it will be on, trust us or we will scramble it to turn it on for you. i would offer the opportunity for him to be to bring up something that either pops into your mind during this site may you didn't get a chance to say, this might be a chance to say it. also another case also another case hitherto briefly highlight. i want to ask you back to the cave, if you look at the political landscape of voting rights, it seems like we are in a period where we will see a lot more cases make their way to the core. did you comment on that? is that your expectation as well? be that we are going to see a voter i.d. coming out of either wisconsin or texas.
we are dedicated we are dedicating the case that we just finished closing arguments in challenging the voter i.d. laws, in texas today. so we will see and that is probably the next frontier. redistricting is always something that makes its way to the quarter. i don't know how much new ground there is to tread there. because section five is for all purposes a funk at the moment. we may start to see different challenges come to court better now from the voting rights act and could also be quite troublesome. >> janai mentioned a case called shelby county couple years ago. i think it was a very good case that as a counterweight to what i open my remarks were today of the court acted with anonymity. that was the utterly divided landmark provision of the voting rights act has been around since 1965. four years before in which the
supreme court had supreme court had let that provision stand. but in 2013, they struck it down. they struck it down on the notion that there's something called the equal footing doctrine against more than others. it basically is made. you can find it in the constitution and it's an interesting example of how when i was in moscow it was the conservatives who preached judicial strength of the idea that core shouldn't do very much to strike down legislation is unconstitutional. over the last 15 years we've seen a rule reversal and the conservatives flexing muscles and using the courts to strike down legislation in shelby county has example eight. a landmark statute passed 98 to zero by the senate and some mx 421 to three in the house preauthorized in 2006 by those
numbers in at the supreme court struck it down. >> judicial activism is like gerrymandering. >> deal made a brief reference that we have to mention there's a good likelihood the supreme court will get some abortion cases one or more this term. they have not agreed to hear any cases yet. there are several variations of statute that has been ruled on or been ruled on or be ruled on in the federal appeals court. i don't know whether everything is a certainty, but at least a good possibility the court will have to decide one of these abortion cases, maybe this term, maybe next room. >> i want in the spirit of looking ahead, since what we have is the partial supreme court docket, there'll be more things added before the term is up here just a couple things. i think they will continue with the first amendment fatal attraction. we may see more cases being granted that her first amendment related a1 is mohamed versus united states, which will be
looked at by the court in a september 29th conference. this is about a person convicted for providing material support for a terrorist organization largely on the basis of ideological rating posted online, which gets to a different aspect of the same question about how much can mere con to today crime. is it a different type of crime? it's not that they will take it, but it's a very unusual and very interesting case that brings the classic first amendment pressing. there is also a lot in the lower courts involving commercial speech or speech by commercial entities to be the better way to put it, particularly battling around the d.c. circuit, claimed by commercial entities with various types disclosure requirements such as country of origin labeling that violate the first amendment. in the d.c. circuit went on bunk this summer to decide a case of
this kind for the american meat institute. it is not clear what will happen in that specific case on the supreme court level for the supreme court will look at any of this, but there's a lot happening in cases that resemble a little on this beachside kind of what hobby lobby was like on the free exercise side. it's possible we could give a very important first amendment case in the next couple years on the supreme court side. >> if you want to get the microphones in play here, i will give you a moment to do that. go ahead. raise your hand if you're the question. give her four directors at home so they can see you as a question. we will get you in a minute. let me quickly ask a question before we come to you about the court staying relevant. i remember the technology cases like the cell phone case and now we have a face the case of a story, even though technology is not the story. generally speaking, how is the court doing and keeping up with changes to change the way we
live and perhaps the way the decide cases? >> last year was about the company that allows me to kind of intercept over to your television signals and watch them on the internet and so on. the justices did get a fair amount of criticism after the argument for people saying they didn't understand the technology and so on. i just find that frankly wrong. the justices spent a lot of time trying to get the technology right. remember i clerked for justice breyer in 1997. we connected to the internet in the court and so they come to my office and i would say ultimately went to the library where there were two internet terminals to tutor on the internet. they worked their tails off and it was a great opinion. i think they are spending a lot of time getting technology right
and most importantly the theme in technology cases as they've often done as well have not done too much because they know what they don't know. to elegy case after technology case you will see that. the big exception of course is the cell phone case where they felt like no way. if you get arrested, the government can search everything on your cell phone heard every picture, every medical record, every contact from every bank account. no, that is not like the old searches. the crumpled up cigarette container and maybe a weapon or something like that. you could do this as a roving warrant to do whatever. >> they keep them up-to-date on the technology. >> this law clerks, i don't know. >> the california violent video california violent videogame statute, render justice cake and when she was expressing concern
about the threat that the ban in that the ban in the statue commission made a comment about my law clerks are back in the chambers playing some of these games right now so they can get educated. >> justice sotomayor have mentioned she has more than one device that she uses. just having that diversity on the bench and i'm intact logical experience diversity is important. >> they watch disney hd, whatever it's called. okay, let's go to this gentleman right here. first question. we ask all of you to introduce yourself. tell us if you have any affiliation and ask your question. >> minus avra valley me, i'm an adjunct professor at georgetown university law center. i would like to ask professor katyal what is the procedural history of that case? >> so this is a case that arose in the third circuit.
so mr. a love nest, in the process of splitting up with his wife were moving out from the family home and he made some threatening statements on facebook about a coworker and got fired for that and was continuing to make more threatening statements online. he made most of this there is facebook account. he eventually discharged. mostly about the statements about his life. although there is other statements, one about how many kindergartens are nearby. not getting into the statement. with one weapon how much damage you could do. the only question is which one, the source of angst. [inaudible] >> yes. as people begin to investigate him, he began to find some new targets in the speech. so eventually he is arrested and
is brought to trial. it is a pennsylvania case. the instruction that is given at trial is the standard that i was mentioning about the reasonable person, that these reasonable person would think these were threatening statements in this is upheld by the third circuit on appeal. and now what we have is in his seeking of the supreme court, it seems likely of course the court doesn't disclose what his reasons are, but the fact there is a pretty established his agreement in the circuit on what the standard is probably had a lot to do with their granting the case. they recently about data and passed on another case reasons same issue. perhaps it's not the case had issues that would stop them from getting to the sensitive question. but that is how we wound up where we are today. >> was he arrested and in jail?
charged with a crime and find quite >> yes, there is a federal statute under which it is charge, which is a federal thread statute and he was arrested and charged under that statute. it is also not clear what state of mind you need, which is part of why the whole thing has come a first amendment issue because there is not a lot of clear direction from the statute about what is necessary. yes, there is a federal thread statute under which she was charged. >> the first questioner graciously demonstrated, and also asked if you could stand come if you're able to stand. it gives the camera a better opportunity to find you. do someone begin to say something? i am hearing voices. this gentleman with the microphone is next. yes, sir. >> hi, gabriel homestand, i'm a lawyer here in d.c. of public justice. a lot of the topics the panel
have covered our kind of hot red and issues. i'm wondering if there's any sleeper cases out there that seem dry in the surface, issues or financial issues. that might have larger impact the people may not anticipate. >> of course, thanks. anything that comes to mind? >> i've got a bunch of those. left back i think one people have the most significant for the nation's economy is the case in january, which is about whether states can regulate the emergency markets or whether or not it's only federal law that controls many billions of dollars. the question in the cases can states protect consumers with antitrust laws or the federal government sweep away all the state laws. article four of the constitution has a supremacy clause that
makes the law supreme over state and the federal government is regulated the energy markets for a long period of time. the question now is how they occupied the field is strictly? had they pushed away or can states regulate? if they can regulate them, we play by the lowest common denominator and operates or whatever the most restricted straight in the national role has more certainty and predictability. kind of dry, the sub nopal matter to everyone's energy bills. >> there's another case. i don't know if that has broad import and the number of homes that were lost. this case is the eighth circuit and whether a homeowner mortgage funds to rescind the mortgage in writing with the statutory period can do it simply by contact tina mortgage lender in
writing or must the homeowner also initiate a suit to officially rescind the mortgage? obviously the higher the bar at the more difficult it is for recession and the more they will face foreclosure. it is something that we should probably institute. >> when you asked the question, question -- >> the sleeper cases is a better way to put it. you know, neil immediately brings up a preemption case. i think preemption generally is an underappreciated part of the supreme court docket. i think partly people don't put all the preemption cases together because they are brise undersold may different statutory scheme and different subject matter areas. it's a hugely important question
is who gets to decide question, the state or federal government in everything from product liability and energy regulation. >> we have time for plenty more questions. if you see them get at them live in the next two or three minutes, it's not anything you said. thank you furby that the discussion. [applause] all of us have. either currently teach or have taught. steve had students in the audience. can you identify yourself that you're part of steve goebbels class. my students from penn state. let's get a look at you as well. it's not a competition. a former student.
and the teacher evaluation forms will be available. who is next? the one in here has disappeared strangely enough. >> make it schueler in the civil rights division. i'm interested on the pregnancy discrimination act case. if you ever prediction for the outcome and they did all the circuits got upon them by their the aba amendment that does protect pregnant women. >> i hate to make predictions. it looks to me like the court here and this is the fourth circuit, but other courts that have wrestled with this are getting it wrong. this is not consistent with what
congress intended when they passed the pregnancy discrimination act and at least to the extent to two dozen eight amendments to the american with disabilities act should have at least boosted that argument that that doesn't seem to be helping either. so yes if i were going to predict that the court will rule against the united parcel service. >> thinks. who is next? right over here on this side. >> i am arriaga folk -- [inaudible] >> stand so we can get a better look at you. make sure we are talking to you. >> iges had a question. i happen to be be looking at facebook. i have no idea but i looked up and said there was a man with the same name posting on face the year to look at the big picture. if you read the corbels, what is the impact on the average person
who posts on facebook? what is the big picture impact of the case quite >> you are talking about current posts? >> i can't say for sure. but i just thought it was interesting. the >> so you know, the law professor amy resists the idea that this case is about of what we should think it is about is the law of facebook. there is a kind of risk of creating what we like to call the law of the horse. the lot of an inanimate object or a particular media or something like that. the first amendment area by and large the supreme court has resisted doing now. they want rules here that are all-purpose, then apply to people speaking face to face who are the newspaper, who are publishing in facebook, who worked retained, whatever. that doesn't mean they are sensitive to the fact that our chosen media change and this is
probably not a standard that would have played out through facts very much. it'll get played out in facebook and twitter and other things. they want something that is not medium sensitive that applies across media. i think whether they think about facebook or people speaking or whatever, partly they will be concerned about the question of if their standard something that is going to chill people who engage in speech that is borderline but ultimately protected? they buy a large historically worry about the impact that their roles were on protected speech will have on protected speech. the question is what kind of role but you need to have to make sure people feel comfortable posting on facebook, to make sure people feel comfortable engaging face-to-face. that is not found in -- by the way, that is not dealmaking they could be worried about. if the type of thing your question and could be concerned
about. how exactly they will decide, i don't know. what they won't be trying to do is make the law of facebook. >> i don't know few would agree, i think if they opt for an intent requirement, either they faced in the statute or the first amendment requires that, then that gives you about board leeway in all realms of speech. you can say things that if the requisite intent is not there, you probably can't continue to say. if i post on facebook and say, you know, if you don't take that picture rocks me down i'm coming back after your family, if it is reasonable circumstance, i may be in more trouble for that post then if it is an intent requirement. it would be fairly clear that you can't tell i really intended
to make a thread in most circumstances. but a reasonable person might have felt threatened in those circumstances. that is a simple version of the difference. >> although -- sorry. so i do think that is exactly right. people perceive him the understanding that a suggestive intent requirement is protective of war speech and harder to prove someone has the requisite intent to say their speech was unintended. intent is a tricky thing and ultimately in many cases juries will be decided in adorable to evidentiary question about what we read, which is led in by the judge and contradictory nature is assessment of what someone's intent is is kind of a heart to do. so it depends if they say anything about how to implement that, if it's a question for judges, what type of evidence are relevant.
>> a lot of new trial for intent is required here do not sure he wins. >> that's right. that's right. >> you can use this as an example for the language is so strong but yet it doesn't take too broad of a president. >> banks. who is next. >> hi, my name is but one of the latte politics of law scholar at american university. just a general question. what is the courts recent decision in american express for the future of class-action lawsuits and do you see these types of lawsuits in the future due to this decision? >> are you one of professor students? >> know, extra credit if you were. >> i am not a civil procedure
ask for. the court has been really hostile to class-action and there's rda significant reduction in the number of class-action centocor, the requirement by the court that the commonality of interests of the parties in the class has to be much more precarious than before this sort ruling in the last few years i think has made class-action more difficult. >> i would say that is absolutely right. just one in a long line of cases that makes it different to bring class-action lawsuits which a few years ago also narrowed it and a huge attack on the ability of lawyers and attorneys fees in these cases. what we often ignored is how these procedural rules had an
impact on vindicating rights. we talk about the substantive case is and the rights that are at stake, that they are only enabled by these procedural rules. there is consequential in many ways as the substance because you'll never get to the substantive ito not every procedural entrées. i'm glad you raised that. that is a great question. i know of any cases on the docket this term raising those issues the reason that are pending. but who knows. >> i think we have time for one repression if someone has one. right. the middle. >> hi, thanks. fill a lie. i am an attorney in capitol hill. i just had a question about the alabama redistricting case. i'm wondering if section two was that all in play there. >> that's a great question. >> could you explain for the uninformed what that is? >> i talked about section five and that is part of voting
rights act limited to specific jurisdiction until shelby county versus the court put that on hold. but is still in full effect of section two of the voting rights act, which again prohibits any voting practice procedure policy that has lasted in any way the ability of those communities of those voters to elect a candidate of choice to exercise voting power an equal footing. section two was raised in this case. it hasn't been the focal point. the defense was compliance section five. section two has the less developed. of course those of us who care about section two were concerned the court may decide to reach into section two would talk about it and lots of the about whether there may be arguments about constitutionality. i don't think the cases to unite
up squarely. i don't think the court will get to it. but that is always a concern because it is really the last piece of the voting rights act currently in effect to really provide the broad protection against racial discrimination in the political process. >> earlier, neil had said the same-sex marriage civil rights issue of our times with the issues of past times is unresolved. >> i. >> imac pushback on that one. >> there really is no hierarchy of civil rights issues. >> i want to say a couple words of thanks. thanks to our friends from the american bar association. kathy hopped back in chicago who couldn't be here. if you want any more information from the wilson center for the aba division for public association, that is for people join us via webcast or c-span can get this useful publication.
i want to thank the audience in the room, the audience watching on c-span can also be at the wilson center webcast. and then i want to ask all of you to join me with one final bit of business, which is thinking our outstanding panel. [applause] things are coming. things are watching. [inaudible conversations] >> texas governor rick peary is retiring after 14 years. the states are public and attorney general, greg abbott and state senator wendy davis are running to replace him. they participated in the first of two debates on friday night. we are going to show that to you
and a half an hour here on c-span2 at 7:00 eastern. right now a brief look at the debate. >> do you regret voting for barack obama? davis: mr. at-bat, what i am working on right now is running for governor. this incredible state. bring in policies forward that will benefit this day. i am working to make sure that every hard-working taxpaying, no matter where they start, has an opportunity to go as far as they dream. 30 years ago i couldn't have imagined that i would have the privilege. when i was a young, single struggling mother sitting on the stage and having the opportunity to ask taxes for its vote to be the next governor. texas is at a turning point and that is what is important in this election. will we create a 21st century future economy that works for all hard-working texans?
i believe that we need a governor who will fight for all hard-working texans every single day because their future depends on it. and i believe we need a governor who is going to make sure that our children receive a world less education because their future depends on it. >> moderator: senator, your turn to ask a question. davis: mr. at-bat, the judge recently vote against u.n. in favor of the schoolchildren of texas, ruling that our schools are unconstitutionally underfunded. the only thing right now coming between our children, and appropriate funding of our schools today is you. on behalf of the 5 million children of this day, will you agree tonight that you will drop your appeal and allow our schools to be appropriately funded?
abbott: senator davis, there's actually another thing between me and not lawsuit and that is the law you voted on to help pass in 2011 and every most of the attorney general the ability to settle lawsuits just like this. but it is important to understand that what i want to do is focus on creating mass governor a better education system in the state. it is time that we put our partisan differences aside when it comes to building a better future for the next generation. what i am focused on a sunday school system that was constructed in part in the last century. what i am focused on is building a better education system for the next generation. >> you can see all of the texas governor's debate between democrat wendy davis and republican greg abbott to half-hour from now. here on c-span2.
billions in medicare dollars spent on hospice care in the united states each year. we are joined in this section by peter whoriskey, staff writer with the washington post and has written about the subject in a series called the goodness of dying. first, what are the medical services that fall into the definition of hospice care in what we are talking about today? >> guest: so, hospice pertains to people who are going to die and two doctors are supposed to is that you will probably die within six months. and during that time rather than getting curative care, something to cure whatever your ill minutes, you get palliative care, something to make you comfortable as you are leaving this world and to enable people to talk with their family, social workers come out. there are doc airs, nurses that involves medical care, but also family care, bereavement. there is a package of services that will help people in their last days.
>> host: and how big is the hospice industry in the united states today? >> guest: overall it's about $20 billion in revenue. the medicare child, the chunk that medicare pays for the 17,000,002,012. postcode the overwhelming majority comes from medicare payments. why is that? >> guest: medicare pays for people over 65. most of the people dying are over 65 and not as where your business is. >> host: and mrs. growth in terms of federal money on towards the hospice industry since 1983. so what happened then i sort of changed the way the hospice industry made its money? >> guest: what happened is the hospice movement started as a non-profit do-gooder movement that happened in community organizations, churches and they needed a way to pay for it. in 1983 medicare started paying
for it. it was still a tiny fraction of people getting hospice care. since then, it has grown steadily. you have for-profit companies entering the picture and now about half of americans, half those people on medicare die after getting some form of hospice. some of the site is gone from zero to half of the dying population. since 1983. >> host: how does one qualify for hospice care through federal funded medicare? >> guest: if you're over 65, you'll get medicare or manicured and change. in order to be able in hospice care and have medicare pay for, two doctors have to say you are likely to die within six months and they have to say what you are actually dying of. this has become somewhat of a controversy because it is
difficult to predict. some diseases such as cancer are relatively easy to say you've got this much time left. but other diseases people die of alzheimer's and other are much harder to predict. some people are complaining, look, we should have hospice care for this patient, but we really can't say they are going to die in six months. it is one of the big issues. >> host: but this medicare pay out on a daily basis for somebody in hospice? >> guest: there's several different ways they can do it. 97% of people want to be at home. they just don't want to be in the hospital. for those patients come in medicare pays $160 a day by geography. for the other patients come to you of the other patients want to be in an actual building like a hospital accepted his hospice.
that is 700 or $800 a day. >> host: some of these you describe in your story have sat up a bit of incentives that are causing problems within the industry, correct? >> guest: yeah. what you get paid is a little different. if you get a hip replacement, for everyone they do you get a certain amount of money. because it is a daily rate, there is an incentive to do as little as possible during that day. and that is one potential problem. the even larger problem is that a patient who is at the beginning of their stay for the end of thursday costs a lot for money. i attended there say they are dying in it a lot more care. at the beginning they are getting equipment and stuff like that. so what they have found is unscrupulous hospice operators
will find people who weren't actually dying or near death at all. that way they have a long hospice stay and have this large databases and middleware they don't have to do that much and they still collect $150 a day. it's been a big, big problem. congress and the last week passed a bill that says there will be ways for medicare to stop that. >> host: here is the peter whoriskey story in the "washington post." the scraper of current hospice industry came out over the weekend. if you want to read more, we are talking with him for the next half-hour or so about the hospice industry in the united states, particularly medicare fund aid. but if you have questions for him in his series, the business of time, colin now. so my phone lines are sped up regionally in the eastern or central united states. to quote 258-5380.
not in our pacific regions of the united states. (202)585-3881. a special line for hospice providers. (202)585-3882. we will start with john calling in from san antonio, texas. john, you are on with peter whoriskey of the "washington post." >> caller: yes, yes, i am just trying to give you a comment. i think the hospice is really good. my wife in november passed away and she was in hospice. she was in hospice for eight days. now, my mother is in an hospice. so why to people in hospice at the same time. however, my wife was in an intensive care. >> host: john, we are losing you in san antonio, texas.
he was talking about his experience with hospice care. what do the survey show about how people feel about how hospice care and the families who go through this process along with the loved one? >> guest: there is an awful lot of good stories that come with hospice. you know, people swear by it. they talk about the people who work at hospice is as angels. that's a large number of people. there is a significant minority that are providing far less. every time we read a story about the subject, we hear from people like him who say look, i know what you are saying, but what we had was really good. on the other hand we get letters from people saying i can't hospice was going to be great, heard so much about it and it turned out to be a terrible way to die. >> host: what are the examples that stuck with the u.s. even writing this series? >> guest: one of the very first ones was a woman in
florida who was dying of multiple issues. you could tout when someone is about to die. the nurse who was at the house looks at her husband and said i've got to go. she couldn't get any relief. just been abandoned at the time when you most need someone with medical knowledge, just for comfort, they just laughed. there's a lot of stories have been people left in pain and so on, but that is the first one that stuck with me. the fact that a nurse for hospice might yell out when it's the end of her shift come even though you are about to lose your loved one. she died about 45 minutes after the nurse left. >> host: that story with terminal to collect about how some hospice is treat dying patients if you want to find that on the "washington post"
website. peter whoriskey is here to take your comments in question. donna is next from georgia. on, good morning. >> caller: good morning, hi, how are you guys doing? >> host: good. >> caller: i just want to say there are some things in the affordable care at understand the lay of envy older person person speaking with a doctor. long before they were dying. and what do they do? pickoff empath panels. so you know, i thought that was very important to do. so you know, you don't spend a fortune at the end of your life. >> host: >> guest: , not only do not
spend a fortune, but what kind of care they wanted. sometimes care that doctors feel compelled to do if you haven't given an advance directive and that was taken out of the affordable care act. they will start moving towards paying for those discussions. >> host: is there fear on capitol hill because of how heated the debate became and if you product at panels. they are strongly believing the report with life just because we don't have these discussions about that or don't pay for.yours for the end-of-life discussions doesn't mean you are not going to die. the way we die in hospitals today is quite a bit different than we did 50 years ago. these discussions are not only
good for patients, their families and they also face money. >> host: the providers as we talk with peter whoriskey at the "washington post." edison batavia, illinois. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i place to make a comment. my mom passed recently in june. i would like to say to the hospice admissions was an extremely. a doctor had to recommend it and leave it to a major two-hour interview where they came to my moms apartment and we were all present. she was at home for four days and we had to take her to the hospice residence.
the care they receive from people is outstanding. as far as spending goes, medicare may pay for much at this stage. however, we paid $200 a day out of pocket. my brothers, my sisters and myself after she passed away. funding comes from the individual and as far as daycare any individual receives depends on the family support. the more you visit that person who is they are being cared for, the more they take care of that person. >> host: peter whoriskey comedy went to pick up on any of the comment? >> guest: yeah, i am not familiar with a family having to pick a part of the hospice though if a person is on medicare.
part of the reason that they do often have the intake process is because they want to make sure you are appropriate. they want to make sure you are near death. they want to make sure you are paid to make a decision not to opt for curative care, that you're just looking to be comfortable. because it can be a totally different set of medical issues that would arise but that choice. >> host: jodi to reprint her comment in hospice care is worth every penny to give your loved ones respect and relief. james whittington houston, texas. good morning. you are on with peter whoriskey. >> caller: good morning. i saw a documentary on home hospice. they have people whose cares were so well taken care of that
they take care of hospice in good health. they get their time ran out. any statistical information about the people? >> guest: there is some evidence that people and it's a fairly small group probably live longer if they get on hospice. it is supposed to be hospice being comfortable as you die rather than curing you of illness. i don't know. it is very difficult to know about these individual stories. if you live longer than six months, you're not supposed to get kicked out. all of that means that on average a hospice is not supposed to a patient that last more than six months.
some patients will recognize will last a year or more. some patients will only last seven days. that's for the six months kickstand. >> host: can view explain hospice survivor which you say your piece. another one, medicare was created booming business for people who are dying. >> host: >> guest: these are the unscrupulous providers who work at patients who are dying. you will see some hospice is a very strange looking statistics in that one in four from a recent study. one in four patients are released alive. the purpose of hospice care is to take care of you until you die.
if one therefore i released alive, they are not in rolling the right people for hospice. that is not only the government. it also when a patient gets into hospice and often exposes them to a different regime of drugs, morphine and antipsychotics. that actually willing danger a patient who otherwise might live for a longer period of time. >> host: is the government doing anything to reach cross from unscrupulous hospice providers? >> guest: this is one of the things that congress did last week. they gave medicare the ability to say if they have a large percentage of people discharged alive. if a lot of your patience are
living, they get so well that they don't hospice anymore. who will start looking at the bills were start potentially holding back payment. because we think maybe you are doing something wrong. >> host: tucson, arizona is next. helen is calling in. >> caller: good morning, sir. i would like to say my mother was on hospice. i had to put her on hospice twice. i would like to say that hospice was tremendous. they helped me so much. i had a growth common twice a week. i had a nurse come in and check her once a week. and i had a doctor come in and check for everyone to do while. but without hospice, i would not have gone through it and they
gave me so much good advice on how to take care of my mother to make sure that her last days on earth were the best under the circumstances. as a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks ago, one of the hospice characters called to see how i was doing. i don't think i could have given my mother better care without them. >> host: creases in pennsylvania. >> caller: i had had an rn for quite a few years and i loved my job. i think the affordable care at or whatever that is looking to all of this is a good idea because i work for a good
company. i was able to spend the night with people who were not able to breathe right and help them get treatments they need it. it made me feel so good as a nurse than half the family so much. they watch the dollars. i interviewed for another company that told me just because they want something doesn't mean they need it. as a nurse and a doctor's office, i had hospice companies calling me, want to stop all their heart meds. they have been on hospice for quite a few months and they are there for heart failure. they want to stop them all. you know, they don't need them to be comfortable. they basically didn't want to pay for the medications. so my mom is in hospice now with one of the new regulations and every medication she was giving.
they made me pay for ones that are -- you know, that are hospice. but that got straightened out. they fixed that will both fast and not islam now been revised. >> host: you were nodding your head several times. >> guest: yeah, thanks for that call. she brings up a lot of issues that i hear frequently from nurses who used to work for hospice. this is being paid $150 a day if they can stop your heart meds even if you are calling for help uruguay to enlarge their profit. unfortunately, there are some hospices that will do that. knowing which hospice is going to be the good one in which one
is going to be the bad one. there are some bad ones out there. a lot of people should be calling those good ones. this is the real issue for consumers. the second thing she was talking about, i think she was referring to medicare advantage of review which drives she was going together. and this is because of a new problem with everything that comes up in medicare. there i said that hospices doing that means. that puts medicare in this position of having to correct or punish or try to detect people doing that he is. when they do that, it means they will look at everybody and it slows the whole process down for everyone impressive bird on all hospice is good or bad. that is one of the things that popped up if they were really
taking a close look at what drugs hospice was giving occupation and forcing them to ask for approval. i am told that was going to be ironed out. i don't know if it has been. this is one of the problems in the area. we don't want to hang them up with real server. there's an awful lot that should be working out harder. >> host: in the time we have left, there's a certain line as well as a regional line as we talk with peter whoriskey at the "washington post." great in low bow indiana. good morning. >> caller: by basic statement covers the disease, the u.s. disease of financial greed. it seems to encompass everything
from life to data. everybody is out to make a dollar, regardless of how scrupulous or unscrupulous domain fire. we seem to have out ray lifestyle that has been adopted since i've come to this country and being a profession or in civilian work and basically no contact with the government and getting a drivers license, et cetera. then when i'm in the hands of the government employees, i was shocked at the level of incompetence i encountered from the clerks to the
decision-makers that overall the underlying problem and just about everything. i may just deviate a little bit here. i can block everything. underlying his greed, just absolute, unbridled greed without any attempt to control that. >> host: alice's would even copeland, texas. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. the subject today just had the memorial service for my husband yesterday. hello, can you hear me? postcode alice, go ahead. >> caller: he just died september 4th. so we were under hospice care for about a month. hospice austin was the provider and they were great.
it doesn't seem like they are the greedy kind of hospice company. i did a little research before you find them. there is some that advertised on tv. you have to think, that's got to take away from the care of people as they spend their dollars advertising on tv. first of all, i wonder if there is a way for people to find out the good ones from the bad ones and am i right that if you're advertising on tv you are probably not spending all of your money in a good way. >> guest: i don't know. i haven't seen. i would love to see those ads. i haven't seen hospice ads on tv. but you're right, if they are spending on advertising, not another things. as far as what consumers can do, there's not a lot, but there are some things you can do.
there are several groups which do accreditations of this is -- of hospices. that is a good sign. hospices werek being inspected once every six years. nobody that is a -- things that is enough. that is going to change to every three years. one of the things you can do is look at the accreditation because they do in sections everywhere -- in specs and's every three years. ask what sort of services do they provide. do they provide bereavement? how long have they been in business under the same honor? -- owner?
in bad shape, he was only 57 but he had cancer in the lower parts. he needed a lot of pain medication. my sister-in-law, she did the best she could. him, and over time i notice that if i was there at lunchtime, they would go by but they would not bring anything in. aren't you day, going to bring him in a lunch? they don't do that, they just keep him comfortable. they don't feed him? that is not their job. he looked worse than a survivor of the holocaust. he was in there about three probably weighed 100 pounds and he was six foot three inches.
his eyes were sunken into his head so bad. i'm not saying that i'm against hospice, but for me, it was such a bad experience. my husband is not in good health, i will take care of him as lung as i can. i would never put him in a facility. that wasn't a terrible experience, to starve anybody to death. i know he was going to die, but they could've at least fed him. that is a terrible story. to what the doctors were thinking, or if a doctor saw him and said he should not be eating. that is something they should have discussed with the family, and from my understanding of hospice that would have been something that the patient and the family would have discussed and come to peace with.
>> >> republican candidates attorney general abbott and 89 square off in a one hour debate. >> good evening welcome to the historic gubernatorial debate through the rio grande valley this9&d@ú is the very first texas gubernatorial debate ever held in the rio grande valley. so right now senator -- senator davis thanks for being here and also mr. abbott also audience members watching from the auditorium.
[speaking spanish] >> now with a preview of the rules. >> the doctor's hospital renaissance each candidate has one minute to respond to questions in each has 45 seconds to rebuttal. there will be no opening statements but they will have time to close at the end. us toss last week determined senator davis takes the first question. >> experiencing great concern over the public image of the region over the numbers what would you do to balance security with economic development?
>> good evening i am so happy to be here in the rio grande valley. i would start by listening to the local law-enforcement officials and others here who'd know best what is right for their community. we feel like we need some boots on the ground to assist with lot enforcement. thus serves the governor supported if the federal government will not act to protect our borders then we will. at the same time we must be sensitive to the reputation of this community. comments from my opponent calling this area third world or inappropriate. i will work with the community through the tourism fund to repair the tartness -- tarnished image.
>> i also want to extend my gratitude for this historic debate. here in the rio grande valley is whether here or anywhere in the entire state of texas that communities promote economic development. we want to insure that communities your in the rio grande valley or any community will be safe and secure. that is the purpose to ensure we have additional officers on the ground and the purpose to send the national guard. but after those officials came here that spacex said they would open up right here in the rio grandej'=$ñ valley. >> talking about the school
system not constitutional should that be defended? >> it is clear one saying that needs to be done is to get beyond the school structure we have in the past. it is based in part from the last century. we want to reinvent education to ensure that texas is the number one ranked high school and lower education school system in the entire united states of america. to focus of the fundamental building blocks how to be sure education begins all the way through third grade to be sure that they can read or do matt that grade level at the third grade. but i want to put trust where it belongs.
with no one size fits all mandates. >> in stark contrast to mr. abbott i of protests of the millions of dollars going to the public schools. mr. abbott is ruling in favor of our children better against mr. abbott but these cuts that you defend of overcrowding leaving teachers laid off is not conservative it is dumb. you're stalling out the children's future. as governor that education of children will be a priority we will fight to make sure they have more resources, not less. >> senator davis he released a book you discussed your personal plates with abortion so what is fair
regulation? >> i have always believed women should be able to make this most personal and difficult decision themselves guided by their faith and family and with their doctor. i stood on the senate floor 14 hours and to ensure that this most private decision should be made by women. my opponent on the other hand, has paid women in his office less than man and campaigned with the knows sexual predator who has bragged about having sexual intercourse with underage girls.c,2 make on their own even with rape or incest. mr. abbott that is not protecting the texas women and on behalf of texas women
>> i am pro-life and i am catholic. life is sacred. as governor i will develop a culture in this state so we can do even more to protect women and children but to the answer your question, texas insurers that we protect my life and do a better job to protect the health care of women by providing them, they have five months to make a very difficult decision but after that time the state has an interest to protect the child. >> use say corruption in the valley to a third-world countries what was your motivation behind that comparison and qb greg to that statement? >> i did make that statement
but i talked about corruption across the state of texas not the rio grande valley. as the attorney general i have fought to root out and prosecute throughout the state of texas progress prosecuted more than 100 cases of public corruption. it doesn't matter the rio grande valley or dallas texas we need to have a state that eliminates corruption. as governor i will continue to ensure that we root out challenges like this which is why i have proposed reform to prevent situations like legislators to profiteer. but also it doesn't matter if you're in their real grand valley or the panhandle. as public officials abide by the lot as your attorney general and governor i will ensure that they do.
>> these comments label a community. mr. abbott says he has worked on corruption in other parts of the state's but referring to it as third world? words matter. he has labeled this air as a part of our states and the incredible part of the diversity of where we are. to make sure everyone understands what i understand about the rio grande valley that is still that parents want opportunities for their children filled with hard-working people. and as their next cover it is my intention to provide that. >> should you give drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants? >> i believe everyone on the
road should have a driver's license and should be insured. other states have found a way to make this happen even for undocumented immigrants in their community. far too often as a public servant i have been told about incidents where people were in an accident with uninsured drivers. arizona does and texas should issue driver's certificates for those who can prove they have insurance. that is the safest way to ensure that people who are driving on our roads drive with the right authority and insurance. >> there are problems with regard to the conflict that these laws have the of federal act. we saw that when there was another state that try to create these drivers licenses in the form of
california. u.s. department of justice rejected the attempt. so i think it is unworkable because of that conflict. >> general add it ranking rgv worst for veterans care wait time so what would you do for timeliness? >> it is effective the men and women who have fought for our country have to wait and now has been documented sometimes losing their lives because of the inadequate care of the veterans administration. my family looks a lot like texas. it is filled with veterans. my brother served in the navy 20 years. my wife's family serb army navy air force remains her uncle served in the army during world war ii. the men and women who serve
on the front lines should not have to be pushed to the back when it comes to the health care needs. during his campaign barack obama came to the rio grande valley and said he would establish a veterans$t hospital right here and we're still waiting for the president to make true on his promise. i will work with federaliy;ñ authorities to ensure we get the help that we need for our veterans. >> it is unacceptable anyone whose serves our country should find themselves year without medical care that they have erred and so deserved.mñ i will work with this community to ensure that we do bring a veterans hospital here to serve the service members who have served us so well. right now they have to drive as far as san antonio. is a great opportunity for
the tea than medical school. i would like to see us work with them to see if we can create a shared campus to provide a medical hospital specifically for veterans. >> senator davis texas has left millions of dollars on the table to come to the state if we expanded medicaid. could you explain that? >> we will spend $100 billion of our tax money to california and new york over the next 10 years. there is a reason why republican governors around the country have found a way to bring the money down. there is the reason that chambers of commerce throughout the state including here in the rio grande valley have asked us to do the right thing to bring the money back to texas to work for a santry
to 300,000 jobsyi(ñ per year that it will bring. general abbott says california's best friend is tex. he was to continue to send our tax dollars to them. and of course, general abbott california already has one governor. they do not need to of them. >>. >> we will provide more access we have a plan to increase spending for women and veterans and funding for disabled and mental health. but i will not do what senator davis was to do she wants to expand obamacare that is the last thing that we need. it is the object failure. expanding medicaid is bad for patients, bad for doctors, bad for taxpayers. you have seen in the future of obamacare with the5 veterans care.
doctors see that medicaid and obamacare simply cannot get paid and you cannot have access to health care without doctors. >> general abbott we do support immigration reform for texas? >> we don't need the obama style mandates to tell business how to run their business. government doesn't know how to run business. proof of that is by looking at the state of texas itself. senator davis thinks we need to have an increase of minimum-wage here but the lost fact is 94% of the hourly wage jobs in,x the state taxes are paid above minimum wage already. there is a reason for that because the texas model works with job creation. we need to get that
government to take the market to do this. looked at the wage growth the federal reserve has the greatest increase from the top two quartiles of the wage category. the high-paying wages because we don't let the federal government tell us how to run our business. >> i know what it is like to work as hard as you can bet yet checked out groceries to put food back because you don't have enough money to pay for it to. minimum wages that only good for texas families but our economy. $7.25 per hour that is only $15,000 per year that is not enough to support a family. it is good for texas to raise the of minimum-wage to provide an opportunity for families to provide for themselves as they desperately want to do.
once again my a 0.is looking out for friends not families that would benefit for working a hard day's work. >> your time is up. , austin is beginning to resemble washington d.c. with the lack of decision making. as governor'' would you do toz6 prevent legislative gridlock? >> on the council i served nine years and not with a partisan affiliation next to my name and i did not learn how to function with one either. as a number of the texas senate i have worked across the aisle to pass and co-author and support to legislation across the ideal. as governor i believe we need a leader who will bring people together to break up the partisan division we have seen an austin creeping more and more into everyday affairs.
the people of texas deserved us to put them, not partisan politics first. as their next governor icahn in sure i will continue to demonstrate both parties to bring them together to particularly make sure we find our public schools. >> i have been effective to work with members of both parties to pass legislation even as the capacity of the attorney general. i have worked with rgv even as senator passing criminal-justice reform and senators to pass reform to open government laws. but the most important thing is to be focused on the issue that affects all texas families come ensuring that texas remains number one in the nation for job creation. to build the road we needohñp for the next generation. transforming education to be
number one in the nation. to ensure we have access for communities here in the rgv as they continue to grow. >> general abbott, a number of cases nationally with death penalty opponents when they were accused. how would you ensure the person is not put to death and that is innocent? >> we want to ensure the death penalty will be enforced effectively. we have ways to&:
>> that is why i am proud to have over 18,000 rate kids in our state making sure that victims' have what they;fz deserve. >> senator davis calling out the national guard. what actions would be better secure our borders? >> this government will not act to secure our border but we will. but i would also asked the governor to convene into special session to hear from local community members not only in law enforcement where we were told by the sheriff and others that they need deputies but they want
the right boots on the ground but to serve the needs coming across the border, that humanitarian side of this issue to face the nonprofit organization assistance and when i am governor we will. >> the federal government has failed to solve a problem that i am the only candidate to night to outline a plan to deal with border security. we ensure we have 500 officers to help secure the border and internally in the state of texas. i have texas rangers rangers, efforts to ensure the tools and resources and
technologies we need. i go after the gang-related problem as a result of the spillover from cross border activity. i can now with the new law to crack down on those that are harming the victims along the way. >> general abbott the summer of immigration concerns aside the rhetoric you feel a responsibility? >> absolutely. why i feel in part taking it into a hispanic family 33 years now. . .
>> the potential for the glove toes come off it could pea there. you can be a part of what is happening here tonight. let mow us know who is winning. >> what do you want to hear in this debate? it is your time to chime in. [speaking foreign language] >> reminder the first gubernatorial held in texas in the rio grande valley continues here. stay there for everybody watching at home. rgb debate is the hash tag. welcome to the rio grande valley. kicking it off with candidate to
candidate question. greg abbott you are first. >> senator davis, do you regret voting for president obama? >> mr. abbot, i am working on running for governor of this incredible state and bringing policies forward that will benefit this state. i am working to make sure every hard working texan no matter where tay start has an opportunity to go as far as they dream. 30 years ago, i could not have imagined i would have the privilege. when i was a young, struggling single mother of sitting on this stage and asking texas for its vote to be the next governor. texas is at a turning point. and that is what is important in this election. will we create a 21st century future economy that works for all hard working texans or some?
i believe we need a governor who will fight for all hard working texans every day because their future depends on it. i believe we need a governor who is going to make sure our children receive a world-class education because our future depends on it. >> senator davis, it is your turn to ask a question. >> mr. abbott, judge speaks has ruled gives you and in favor of the school children of texas ruling that will schools are unconstitutionally underfunded. the only thing coming between our children and appropriate funding of their schools today is you. on behalf of the five million children of this state will you agree tonight that you will drop your appeals and allow our schools to be appropriately funded? >> senator davis, there is actually another thing coming between me and settling that
lawsuit and that is a law that you voted on and helped pass in 2011 that removes from the attorney general the ability to settle lawsuits just like this. but it is important to understand that what i want to do is focus on creating as governor a better education system in this state. it is time we put our partisan differences aside when it comes to building a better future for the next generation. i am focused on not just a school system constructed in the last century. i am focused on building a better education system for the next generation. my goal is to work to elevate the texas education system to be ranked number one in the nation. >> mr. abbott, attorney generals around this country stood up against their legislature when they believed they are wrong.
you are short changing our school children. >> senator davis, we appreciate it. at the end we have closing statements and i encourage you to use this time for continue to discussion. carlos, your question. >> senator davis, if elected would you push for people receiving state assistance like food stamps to be drug supported? >> i supported a bill that would provide for that in the last legislative session but i supported making sure we put in place mechanisms so that false drug tests do not force people off of food stamps. i also was very sensitive to the fact that children shouldn't be punished by virtue of the fact they may have a drug-addicted parent and worked with the author of the bill to include a provision if it was the case a positive drug case was found for that person to continue to
receive their assistance if they would agree to go into a drug treatment program and to receive the help that they need. >> senator abbott, your response. >> i do support that law. we want to do all we can to help those in need and part of what we can do help those in need is help them improve their lives. one way to help them improve their lives, if they are relying on government benefits, we can try to help them overcome challenges they have due drug addiction or other challenges. we look for this to be a win-win situation. helping those depending on government benefit tos to find pathway beyond and contribute to the framework of texas. >> senator davis, we created a universal program for pre-k.
do you support that and if so how will you fund it? >> i believe pre-k is the starting point in the education and i think the strategy is to have the premier pre-k program in the entire country. i know if we can begin educating our students at the very beginning we will be able to have that solid foundation that students need to build on. so my education system does begin with pre-k. and importantly, it builds upon that to ensure what students learn in pre-k is going to continue in kindergarten and all the way through. but it is essential what we have in pre-k isn't just throwing more money but instead we structure the most effective program so students have literacy skills they can build
on. >> senator davis? >> i strongly support full day pre-k for every eligible in the state. unlike my opponent who would pick and chose which children are able to get off to a strong support i would provide that strong start to every four year old in our state. my opponent has suggested four year old test to demonstrate they should receive the support and picking and choosing those who would receive or not. under mr. abbott four year olds would be subjected to a standardized test. >> senator davis, do you agree with the decision to indict?
>> i do not know what the grand jury had before them. i believe they are serious charges and deserve serious consideration. i am not second guess the justice system. i would abide by the decisions. >> i wasn't a part of the grand j j jury so i don't have the facts. it is bizarre a governor is indicted for using a spending measure. it is a constitutional authority and i want to it to remain robust so i can exercise that veto for what i considered inappropriate spending. one key role i will make as governor is making sure the state of texas lives within a budget and being able to fulfill
that requires being able to use this constitutional power >> the mayor of mccallum expects to spend half a million for the humanitarian relief fund for the influx of immigrants this summer. what would you do to reimburse the cities? >> as we speak my office is working on a potential lawsuit against the obama administration where we are putting together the expenses incured by the state of texas and i am thinking about the possibility of rolling into the litigation the expenses occurred by the rio grande valley. this is expensive and shouldn't come out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the united states. it wasn't the rio grande valley that caused this.
this happened all because of the president's fault. when the president cast the message telling people they would be able to come here without any type of enforcement. so we need to hold the president and his administration responsible for paying this bill as we speak i am in the process of working on getting that done. >> senator davis, your response. >> as i said earlier, had i been governor at that time and when i am elected governor if i have the privilege of serving there, i will call our local communities before the legislature and ask them what it is that they need. i sent a letter to governor perry asking him to con vene -- convene -- us in a special session to hear from the border communities and also the faith-based and charitable organizations to see what we can do for them.
it is ultimately the federal governor's responsibility to secure the border and pay the cost of the consequence of not securing it. but as a governor i believe the state should step in and help communities. >> what would you do to combat the imprint of drug cartel in texas, senator davis? >> i believe we must focus on drug and human trafficking. that is why i supported the third of the officers who have detention and arrest authority here. but i also believe we need to be just as focused on the economic relationship between mexico and texas. we need to be investing more, not less, in the infrastructure that will help to accelerate the movement of goods between mexico and texas.
our economy is dependent upon our relationship with mexico. as governor, i will make sure we work across the border not only on security but in continuing to keep that economic relationship strong and vibrant. >> senator abbott. >> i am the only person with a pran plan to go after the drug cartel. i will tell you why. i was visiting a with a latino and she begged me to fulfill the promise of going after the car tell because her brother was paying a pickup soccer team in the rio grande and had to play with the son of a cartel members. children shouldn't be forced to make those decisions. i will secure the border and go after any drug cartel that tries
to harm texas. >> there is a water shortage forcing the farmers to grow back on farming. if elected how will you make sure mexico will repay the debt, senator abbott? >> i am working on this already. i am talking about a number of economic-base issues with the ambassador from mexico to the united states. we talked about the need for mexico to fulfill its obligation to water that texas deserves. you could tell me understood because you can see where mexico is today and they are growing economically and know part of the future is tied to the economic fume future of texas. i think mexico wants to be a good partner and see economic development flourish on both sides of the border and just
like we work would the president in 2004 to ensure we got access to the water from mexico, i think we can do it again. >> senator davis. >> drought conditions cost the rio valley millions of dollars and last year farmers had to turn millions of crops. making sure the water relationship is kept up is vitally important and as governor i will create a relationship that will achieve that. i will not wait only on mexico and that water treaty to solve this problem. that is why as the state senator i supported and was proud that voters supported a $2 billion water revolving loan fund that will help communities like the rio grande valley to help and grow water conservation efforts.
>> senator davis, the texas city of west was rocked by a terrible explosion caused by chemicals that were stored there that many residents didn't know were stored there. what did you believe the state should do? >> dangerous chemicals being stored by homes and where they work is supported by greg abbott. he has shown several times he will favor the interest of his friends over hard working families when he ruled texas families no longer have a right to know about the dangerous chemicals stored next to them. this came with him accepting a
$100,000 plus donations from his koch brother supporters. >> there is a law in texas called the community right to know law and people in the state of texas have the right to gain information like whether or not chemicals are stored in their neighborhood. there is another law competing with it. and that is the texas homeland security act. and i applied the texas homeland security act to ensure that information involving certain chemicals isn't exposed to terrorist. terrorist like timothy mcveigh who blew up a courthouse in oklahoma city. we have seen the rise of terrorism. i have been involved in prosecuting a terrorist member of isis.
>> general abbott, do you think texas is tough enough on capital punishment? >> we have probably the tupest capital punishment laws in the fags. and our job is -- nation -- in criminal justice and that is to ensure those that commit the most heinous crimes get the capital punishment they richly deserve and they deserve it because whau when you think about what happened to the victims and the way the victims were harmed and struggled before loosing their lives. we need to ensure those that commit the worst of crimes are punished accordingly. but it is essential that we do it in a fair, just and certain
way. >> senator davis? >> i voted to expand the enforcement of capital punishment to include other crimes. i do support and will carry out as governor the death penalty. but we also in texas have the highest number of exonerations of any state because we had not appropriately been using dna evidence. as governor, i am make sure we don't have guilty people meeting the ultimate non-guilty people. >> national guard troops were sent to the border and it is estimating to cost $20 million
of taxpayer money. is that important? >> it is important to investigate in education and make sure every 4-year-old has access to quality pre-k to get off to a strong start. making sure students have access to college and it is affordable. when we spend money on something that wasn't requested by the local community and put boots on the ground that don't have detention and arrest authority costing $12 million a month we are short-changing our ability to do what makes start investment in the future of this state. >> general abbott? >> this was a necessary
expenditure because the federal government failed to do its job. the federal government has the responsibility to secure and protect the border. it failed in its fundamentally responsibility. but we are not standing udall -- by. we are demanding from the federal government reimbursement for the expenditures we paid out to secure the border. security communities promote economic development. this is a way of empowering the economy in south texas even more. >> there is a trial in corpus cristi regarding voter idendification laws. state your opinion on this. >> i am in favor of the voting ide identification laws.
voter fraud is real and it must be stopped and this is a way to stop it. i am the only candidate running who stands for making sure we root up corruption that might take place in the voting arena. you know, carlos, one of the challenges going on as we speak is the fact the fbi is involved in an investigation about people in the rio grande valley were who using cocaine to buy votes. we cannot accept or tolerate this lack of integrity in the voting process. the supreme court ruled voter ide identification is a tool allowed to use. >> senator davis your response. >> i fought making sure people with valid opportunities and identification to vote were
provided to ability to that. mr. abbott's party calls for the repeal of the voting rights act and this is about suppressing minority vote. he is defending in court a voter id law that has its intended purpose that outcome. just as he defended, in my district that i represent, the ability to suppress votes by tearing communities apart from each other, tearing minority voters from each other to suppress their voices at the ballot box. >> that concludes the question and answer section of this historic debate. it is time for closing statements. senator davis is up first. >> a dear friend has a
grandmother who gave advise saying when someone shows you who they are believe them. i showed texas who i was. when i stood against the cuts to the public school because that is not just bad for our children it is bad for our future. i have shown it by fighting for every four year old to have access to full day pre-k and for every high school student to have affordable access to college. i have shown it by fighting to make sure people with paid fairly for a hard day's work because an increase in minimum wage is good. giving 2.8 million texans increase in spending and providing for their families is important. i have shown i will fight for equal pay for equal work and i will fight to close outdated tax
loopholes that benefit giant corporations and send out money to fund our public schools instead. my opponent has shown that he will not support equal pay for equal work for women. that he thinks we should pick and chose which children should get off to a good start. and time and again he is going to favor his insider friends over everyday texas families. voters will have to ask themselves this in the ballot box. who will fight for me? who will fight for my family? i am asking for your vote tonight. if i have the privilege as serving for your next governor, you will not need a high paid l lobbiest to represent you because i am you. i have never forgotten who i am or where i come from. i will fight for you every single day. >> general, abbott.
>> thank you, ryan, and thank you all for hosting this unprecedented debate opportunity into the rio grande valley. as your attorney general, i have been fighting for your liberty against an overreaching government and elevated the child support system to be number one in the nation and fought to defend the ten commandments on the texas grounds and we won. now i want to fight for the future of texas as your next governor. texas is already great but i am running for governor to make it even better. texas is number one in the nation for creating jobs. i will keep it that way by keeping the government small and taxes low. i will build the roads and water projects we need to keep texas growing. i will also keep our communities safe from the rio grand valley
all the way to the red river. i will work to build a future generation. texas is number one in the nation for jobs and also for farms, exports, energy production and so many different things. the time has come to set a new aspiration. texas should be number one in the nation for educating our children. as your governor i will work to fulfill that aspiration. as your governor, i will keep texas the land of opportunity. the place where hopes and dreams can still be realized. the place where more freedom and less government still matters. i am running for governor. and i am asking for your vote to make texas even better. thank you. that concludes the first texas
gubernatorial. we appreciate both of you coming out. senator davis thank you for your time and insight and general greg abbott thank you as well. we appreciate you both coming. and this is all about arming our viewers with the information they need to make an informed decision when they hit the polls. it is worth reiterating the last day to register to vote is october 6th. early voting starts october 20th and the big day where we will decide a new governor in texas will be on november 4th. i want to bring in, if is okay, carlos, the editor of the "the monitor" newspaper. your thats on this historic debate? >> thank you for your participation. as the post-debate begins about who won we should be mind full there is one clear winner and that is the voters of the rio grande valley.